The following documents were considered in connection with Plaintiff's motion, dated March 31, 2025, (hereinafter "Motion Sequence # 2"), seeking the entry of an Order granting the following relief:

1. Precluding the Defendant from introducing any evidence to support his claim that real property located at XXXX, Athens, Greece (the "Apartment") constitutes his separate property pursuant to DRL § 236(B)(1)(c), New York Rules of Evidence Rule 1.07, the Treaty Abolishing the Requirement of Legal Satisfaction for Foreign Public Documents (a/k/a the Hague Convention of 1961 or the Apostille Convention), and CPLR § 2101(b), including, without limitation, the documents set forth below that were exchanged during discovery:

a. Bank statements in Greek from September 23, 2022 to October 23, 2024 (Exhibit 6, B000001 — B000026);

b. Greek document which Defendant alleges to be a deed dated December 22, 2008 (Exhibit 7, B000027 — B000031);

c. Tax Return of Tax of Donation-Parental Grant or Dowry in Greek (Exhibit 8, B000032 — B000050) and English (Exhibit 9, B000063 — B000073) dated November 20, 2008;

d. Greek document which Defendant alleges to be his Parents' tax return (Exhibit 10, B000051 — B000055);

e. The parties' Greek joint tax returns for 2014 through 2020 (Exhibit 11, B000056 — B000062); and

f. Greek email correspondence from Pireaus Bank dated January 20, 2025 (Exhibit 12, B000074 — B000076); and

2. Granting such other and further relief which to this Court seems just and proper.

Exhibits 1-12 1-14

Exhibits A-H 15-23

This matrimonial action was commenced with the filing of a Summons on September 25, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1).

On February 21, 2025, a pre-trial conference order (NYSCEF Doc. No. 49) was entered scheduling the matter for trial for April 22, 2025, April 23, 2025, April 25, 2025, April 28, 2025 — April 29, 2025, May 2, 2025, May 6, 2025, and May 7, 2025. A note of issue was filed on February 28, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 51).

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed Motion Sequence No. 2 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 72-85), seeking the above-referenced relief, which was conformed on April 1, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 86), directing: (1) Motion Sequence No. 2 be served on Defendant's counsel by April 1, 2025; (2) answering submissions be served and filed by April 9, 2025; and (3) scheduling the return date for Motion Sequence No. 2 as April 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

On April 9, 2025, Defendant filed submissions in opposition to Motion Sequence No. 2 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 119-127).

No further submissions were filed pertaining to Motion Sequence No. 2.

While Plaintiff asserts that the documents annexed to Motion Sequence No. 2 fail to comply with the statutory requirements applicable to non-English language documents, Defendant's counsel asserts that each of the documents annexed to the submissions made in opposition to Motion Sequence No. 2 comply with CPLR § 2101(b). Defendant's counsel argues that, "as each such document contains an English translation as well as a Certification of Translation/Affidavit of Translation and Certification of Translation Accuracy and/or the required Apostille from each translator," and continues, "Each such Affidavit confirms that the translation is competent to translate in the English and Greek languages and that the attached translation is a complete and accurate translation of the Greek document, and that the document [*2]has not been translated for family member, friend or business associate."^[FN1]

Plaintiff's application requests preclusion of documents sought to be used by Defendant to support a separate property claim pertaining to real property known as XXXX, Athens, Greece (hereinafter "Property"), due to asserted non-compliance with CPLR § 2101(b), including, without limitation, certain documents annexed to the instant motion as Exhibits 6 through 12. Defendant's opposition fails to refer to Plaintiff's exhibits and instead refers to exhibits C-H attached to the opposition submission noting that these documents will be introduced to support Defendant's separate property claim pertaining to the Property:

"Defendant is asserting that the Athens Apartment is entirely his separate property as the parties did not contribute any money towards the purchase of the Athens Apartment, that it was gifted to him by his parents and that the deed has been in Defendant's sole name since the date it was purchased. In addition to Plaintiff's admissions, Defendant intends to offer the following documents into evidence at trial in order to establish his claim:"

Upon examination of the documents annexed to the opposition submissions, it appears that only one of the documents annexed to Defendant's opposition submission correspond with those attached to Motion Sequence No. 2. As Motion Sequence No. 2 requests preclusion of any documents Defendant will seek to introduce to support a separate property claim pertaining to the Property, the Court will review each of the documents annexed to the motion and opposition individually to determine if preclusion of any of the documents is warranted.

1. Request for Preclusion.

New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules (hereinafter "CPLR") § 2101(b) sets forth the manner within which non-English language documents may be utilized in litigation commenced in the State of New York compelling a litigant to meet a two-prong requirement:

"(b) Language. Each paper served or filed shall be in the English language which, where practicable, shall be of ordinary usage. Where an affidavit or exhibit annexed to a paper served or filed is in a foreign language, it shall be accompanied by an English translation and an affidavit by the translator stating his qualifications and that the translation is accurate."

An abundance of case law exists confirming that a foreign language document will not be admissible unless an English language translation is furnished with the required translator affidavit which must both set forth the translator's qualifications and confirms that the translation is accurate (see, Salazar v. Kellari Parea, 189 AD3d 1490 [2d Dept 2020]; Saavedra v. 64 Annfield Court Corp., 137 AD3d 771 [2d Dept 2016]; Rosenberg v. Piller, 116 AD3d 1023 [2d Dept 2014]; Eustaquito v. 860 Cortlandt Holdings, Inc., 95 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2012]).

To comply with CPLR § 2101(b), an affidavit of translator must provide sufficient detail as to the translator's qualifications as a mere assertion that the translator is fluent in the non-English language will be insufficient:

"Here, in support of that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the [*3]issue of liability, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he averred, among other *637 things, that the "affidavit was translated to me from English to Spanish prior to my signing by a person who speaks Spanish as it is my native language and the language I understand best." The plaintiff also submitted a certificate of translation by an associate attorney at his counsel's law office in which the associate attorney affirmed, without elaboration, that she is fluent in English and Spanish and competent to translate documents from one language to the other. Under these circumstances, the conclusory certificate of translation does not contain sufficient detail concerning the extent of the associate attorney's knowledge of the Spanish language. As such, the associate attorney's certificate of translation was insufficient to state the associate attorney's qualifications, rendering the plaintiff's affidavit inadmissible."

(Reyes v. Underwood, 232 AD3d 636 [2d Dept 2024] [internal citations omitted])

As this application seeks preclusion documents based upon the asserted lack of compliance with CPLR § 2101(b), each will be reviewed in turn, beginning with those annexed to the motion:

[1] Exhibit 6 — Upon review of this document, no English language translation has been provided, nor has any affidavit of translation. Therefore, the document fails to comply with CPLR § 2101(b). Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[2] Exhibit 7 — Upon review of this document, no English language translation has been provided, nor has any affidavit of translation. Therefore, the document fails to comply with CPLR § 2101(b). Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[3] Exhibit 8 — Upon review of these two documents, no affidavit of translation has been provided, merely two documents with language almost identical to the Official Translation as defined herein. Therefore, these documents fail to comply with CPLR § 2101(b). Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[4] Exhibit 9 — This document is not admissible as set forth below, as it is identical to the document filed by Defendant as Exhibit F.

[5] Exhibit 10 — Upon review of this document, no English language translation has been provided, nor has any affidavit of translation. Therefore, the document fails to comply with CPLR § 2101(b). Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[6] Exhibit 11 — Upon review of this document, no English language translation has been provided, nor has any affidavit of translation. Therefore, the document fails to comply with CPLR § 2101(b). Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[7] Exhibit 12 - Upon review of this document, no English language translation has been provided, nor has any affidavit of translation. Therefore, the document fails to comply with CPLR § 2101(b). Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

Next, turning to the documents annexed to Defendant's opposition submission:

[1] Exhibit C — Filed as NYSCEF document number 122, this document contains three documents: (1) certificate of translation accuracy, (2) certificate by translator, and (3) affidavit of translation, each of which will be reviewed herein to determine if any meet the statutory requirements.

a. Certificate of Translation Accuracy (hereinafter "Certificate") — This document is signed by an individual who is not named but instead merely designated as an [*4]"authorized representative" and provides the following:

"We, RapidTraslate, a professional translation services company with a corporate membership to the American Translators Association, hereby certify that a qualified, experienced, and competent professional translator has translated the provided original document to the best of the translator's abilities. In our best judgment, the translated documents and text therein are a true and accurate translation, which reflect the original content, meaning, and style of the originally provided document(s). RapidTranslate has no relation to the client or original owner of the provided documents. This is to certify the correctness of the translation only. RapidTranslate make no claims, representation, guarantees, or warranties concerning the authenticity of the original document translated. Further, RapidTranslate disclaim any and all liability for the manner in which the translation is used by the customer or any third party, including end-users of the translation. A copy of the translation is attached to this certification."

The Certificate does not comply with CPLR § 2101(b) as it fails to provide the name of the translator who provided translation services pertaining to the subject document and provide the qualifications of the translator. Instead, this document appears to be a certification by the company who employed the translator providing a generic statement regarding the services provided by the company and a disclaimer regarding those services.

b. Certification By Translator (hereinafter "Certification") — This document includes the following language:

"I, Iurie Tirdea, certify that I am competent to translate in the English and Greek languages, and that the above-attached document is a complete and accurate translation of the above-attached document. This document has not been translated for a family member, friend or business associate."

Certificate #2 does not comply with CPLR § 2101(b) as it is not an affidavit and provides no qualifications of the translator, but merely indicates the assertion that she is competent in the English and Greek languages.

c. Affidavit of Translation (hereinafter "Affidavit") — This document includes the following language:

"I, Iurie Tirdea, am fluent in English and Greek. I hereby certify that I have translated and verified the following document(s) which is/are attached to this Affidavit: Description of documents(s) (title or type, document date, number of pages) Purchase Contract — 20 pages I further certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the attached document(s) written in Greek language is/are a true and accurate translation of the attached documents written in English language."

The Affidavit does not comply with CPLR § 2101(b) as it is in affidavit form, but is not notarized as the lower portion of the one-page document which includes a place for notarization is blank. Moreover, like Certificate, no translator qualifications are provided.

Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[2] Exhibit D - Filed as NYSCEF document number 123, this document contains a document titled official translation (hereinafter "Official Translation") which includes the following language:

"Apostille (THE HAUGE CONVENTION, dated 50.10.1961)

1. County Greece

This public document

2. has been signed by Ms. MARIA MOUTAFI

3. acting in the capacity of the Head of the Tax Office of Chios

4. bears the official seal / stamp of the Tax Office of Chios

5. in Chios

6. by the Decentralized Administration of the Aegean

7. under ref. number XXXX

8. Seal: Hellenic Republic — Decentralized Administration of the Aegean

9. Signature: Mr. GEORGIOS MOUNIES, Administrative Secretary

Total number of pages of the original document: 4 / Total number of pages of the translation 3 Official translation — True and accurate translation of the original document from Greek into English Athens, 12.11.2024 Alexandra Koutra, Certified Translator of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs — Reg. No. 065 35 Charitos Street — 10675 Athens, Greece . . . "

The Official Translation does not comply with CPLR § 2101(b) as it is not in affidavit form and does not contain the qualifications of the translator. Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[3] Exhibit E — Filed as NYSCEF Doc. No. 124, this document contains language nearly identical to that of the Official Translation and therefore does not comply with CPLR § 2101(b) as noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[4] Exhibit F — Filed as NYSCEF Doc. No. 125, similar to Exhibit C, this document contains three documents in the same format including a certificate of translation accuracy which is nearly identical to the Certificate, a certification by translator which is nearly identical to Certification, and an affidavit of translation which is nearly identical to the Affidavit with the exception that this document is notarized. Therefore, these documents do not comply with CPLR § 2101(b) as noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[5] Exhibit G — Filed as NYSCEF Doc. No. 126, similar to Exhibits C and F, this document contains three documents in the same format including a certificate of translation Accuracy which is nearly identical to the Certificate, a certification by translator which is nearly identical to Certification, and an affidavit of translation which is nearly identical to the Affidavit with the exception that this document is notarized. Therefore, these documents do not comply with CPLR § 2101(b) as noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

[6] Exhibit H - Filed as NYSCEF Doc. No. 127, similar to Exhibits C and F and G, this document contains three documents in the same format including a certificate of translation accuracy which is nearly identical to the Certificate, a certification by translator which is nearly identical to Certification, and an affidavit of translation which is nearly identical to the Affidavit with the exception that this document is notarized. Therefore, these documents do not comply with CPLR § 2101(b) as noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this document must be precluded.

2. Other Relief.

To the extent relief requested has not been granted or otherwise addressed herein, it is hereby denied.

ORDERED that Motion Sequence No. 2 is granted to the extent as set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel shall serve, via NYSCEF filing, this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry on the Attorney for the Child and on Defendant's counsel by April 18, 2025, and shall file an Affidavit of Service by that date; and it is further

ORDERED that to the extent any relief sought has not been granted, it is expressly denied.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.